SMSL PS200 PRO DAC Review (NTTY)

[NTTY]

Nice job, @NTTY !

Thank you!

 

[daniboun]

I think – correct me if I'm wrong – it's because of the metal casing. Keeps out interference but doesn't play nice with Bluetooth.

No idea here but could be true )

 

[EHC]

It looks like PS200 is equipped with OPA1656, a FET input, very low noise and low distortion op amp. In some circuits (source and feedback network impedances higher than ~ 10k, etc) it is preferable to OPA1612.

 

[Herbert]

What about frequency response, or did i miss it? Edit: I think I found it, https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...smsl-ps200-pro-measurements-and-review.69126/
could it be it has the same drop between 6kHz and 20kHz like the SMSL-SU1?

 

[Herbert Shooler]

Amazing value and it beats a Chord Dave even with a Quartet scaler!!!

 

[DSJR]

Amazing value and it beats a Chord Dave even with a Quartet scaler!!!

The Chord customer base wouldn't even think of a little box like this - to wrapped up in the mythology of Watts' thinking and the weird styling that Chord specialise in.

 

[NTTY]

What about frequency response, or did i miss it? Edit: I think I found it, https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...smsl-ps200-pro-measurements-and-review.69126/
could it be it has the same drop between 6kHz and 20kHz like the SMSL-SU1?

Yep, I forgot although you get some clues about the flatness from the white noise wide band view. From memory it was -0.2dB at 20kHz for both PS200 Pro and standard, just like the review you quoted (and which I did not see before!).
I’ll add the bandwidth graph when I get back home next week.

 

[daniboun]

The ESS DAC being the same, the main difference is with the OPA1652 and OPA1612. From the respective datasheets of these, the below comparison graphs tells us more about their respective performances:

I think there is a mistake here... We are talking about the Opa1656 and not the 1652.
The Opa1656 is a higher-grade (than the 1652), more powerful revision featuring lower noise, faster slew rate, greater bandwidth, and higher output current, while the OPA1652 consumes slightly less quiescent power.

 

[Herbert Shooler]

The Chord customer base wouldn't even think of a little box like this - to wrapped up in the mythology of Watts' thinking and the weird styling that Chord specialise in.

we should put one in a fancy box,call it the OCTET with 10M taps,lol...

 

[Billy Budapest]

I see the MQA logo on the front. I wonder how much a version without the “MQA tax” would be?

 

[NTTY]

I think there is a mistake here... We are talking about the Opa1656 and not the 1652.
The Opa1656 is a higher-grade (than the 1652), more powerful revision featuring lower noise, faster slew rate, greater bandwidth, and higher output current, while the OPA1652 consumes slightly less quiescent power.

If I made that mistake, I need to update for sure!

 

[daniboun]

If I made that mistake, I need to update for sure!

Thanks

 

[martin900]

Hard to argue with that performance for $90.

It really starts to bug me when people say that 70's/80's hifi was better. Not only that's not true but is a typical case of survivor bias.
Yes you might like the way it sounds or looks or feels or being proud you bought it for 1/20th of it's MSRP, but old gear is not 'better'.
These days one can buy a perfectly fine stereo amplifier for $100-200 brand new, back then if you take wages and inflation in mind, I really doubt you'd get more than a radioshack unit, if any.

Maybe the devices you had to work a few years for were 'better' because back then the designers were chasing numbers in a different way, talk extreme bandwith, DC-coupling, high slew rate and such which resulted in extensively overbuilt, complex devices with hundreds of parts but even then, same or similar result can be achieved for a fraction of the prices nowadays and with tens of not hundreds less parts as the IC's and semiconductors have advanced massively, not to mention speaker technology.
In the end the design school has also changed and many designers don't care for stuff like 500-1000KHz bandwith that causes more trouble.

 

[NTTY]

Thanks

I updated the text but can’t update the the copy of the graphs since I’m on my phone and it’s really too painful. Thanks for spotting the error!

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

People hi

Here is the PCB ->

Personally, I believe the improvement in SMSL's measurements is entirely due to the removal of the Bluetooth circuitry.

This remains to be verified, but in my experience, the more "features"—and thus circuits—you add, the more they interfere with one another, even with the utmost care (a phenomenon my friend Alexander Lin from O-NOORUS and I have observed).

It is worth noting that the measurements achieved by this device far exceed the limits of human hearing; going "further" serves only to flatter our measuring instruments...

It is a DAC that performs its intended task perfectly; as for the "functions" some users look for (assuming they actually use them), they are more "gimmicks" than anything else. In my opinion, there is an increasing demand for devices to have (very/too) many "functions"—when will the mini-stereo system make a comeback?

Regarding the choice of op-amps, the OPA1612 is now used everywhere because it boasts excellent specifications.

Personally, I would have selected other models, but the device's retail price would have doubled (the OPA2156 for the I/V stage and the OPA2211 for the LPF stage). ->

Have a good day, everyone.

 

[Tell]

So from the looks of it the older none-"pro" is the better one, simply because it got bluetooth, any objective performance differences is just academic and wont make any audible difference whatsoever. It's just another update just for updates sake.

 

[Honken]

So from the looks of it the older none-"pro" is the better one, simply because it got bluetooth, any objective performance differences is just academic and wont make any audible difference whatsoever. It's just another update just for updates sake.

And personally I prefer this, as I don't need BT and not having BT means that there's less things that can break. Speaking of, my current desktop DAC (Topping E30) is starting to act up, and this DAC seems like a perfect replacement. Shame the filter isn't set to fast linear phase, but I don't think it'll matter in practice.

Thanks for the review, NTTY!

 

[Tell]

And personally I prefer this, as I don't need BT and not having BT means that there's less things that can break. Speaking of, my current desktop DAC (Topping E30) is starting to act up, and this DAC seems like a perfect replacement. Shame the filter isn't set to fast linear phase, but I don't think it'll matter in practice.

Thanks for the review, NTTY!

I doubt having BT makes it particularly more breakable. Interesting calling something Pro while having less inputs than the none-pro. But maybe metal is more professional than plastic?

 

[Saponetto]

Thanks @NTTY for your interesting review.
Did you eventually check if the RCA output is flawed by intense "thumps" when the input bitrate changes?
It is what happened with the PO100 AK, and my major gripe.

 

[stefanovesa]

Thanks @NTTY for your interesting review.
Did you eventually check if the RCA output is flawed by intense "thumps" when the input bitrate changes?
It is what happened with the PO100 AK, and my major gripe.

I have it too. For now I've not heard any thump when bitrate changes, so probably it is not affected. Let me do more testing and I'll report any issue